View Single Post
Old October 27, 2018, 05:47 AM   #15
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 7,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5whiskey View Post
. . . .I'm not a lawyer, but I deal with the law and can comfortably answer this. "Reasonable force," "Reasonable actions," etc. is entirely subjective. . . .
I'm afraid that you'd be wrong. The "reasonable man" standard is entirely objective, not subjective. Under that standard, the judge or jury is to determine whether a "reasonable man" in the actor's shoes would have done, would have believed, etc. A subjective test, depends on what that actor actually believed, what information he or she possessed, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 5whiskey View Post
. . . . I don't know every law, statute, penal code, etc. in every state. I do know that "reasonable force" is rarely defined by statutory law and is actually a term coined from Graham v. Conner, as a further clarification of Tennessee v. Garner. In that, "Reasonable Force" is defined by SCOTUS as "Objectively reasonable." . . . .
You are correct about the use of the "objectively reasonable" standard in Graham v. Connor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 5whiskey View Post
. . . .It is supposed to be what a "reasonable" person in similar circumstances would do. The issue is, what a prosecutor or cop (who may decline to charge or decide to clear someone claiming self defense as a personal decision) or a jury (if you are charged and tried) views as a "reasonable person" is entirely subjective on it's face. . . . .
That might be an issue with it, but it's not the issue, in the sense of a "legal issue."
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.
Spats McGee is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04330 seconds with 8 queries